A novel modality for the estimation of the enteroscope insertion depth during double-balloon enteroscopy

Quality indicators for capsule endoscopy and deep enteroscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Capsule endoscopy (CE) and deep enteroscopy (DE) can be useful for diagnosing and treating suspected small-bowel disease. Guidelines and detailed recommendations exist for the use of CE/DE, but comprehensive quality indicators are lacking. The goal of this task force was to develop quality indicators for appropriate use of CE/DE by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

METHODS

An expert panel of 7 gastroenterologists with diverse practice experience was assembled to identify quality indicators. A literature review was conducted to develop a list of proposed quality indicators applicable to preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure periods. The panelists reviewed the literature; identified and modified proposed quality indicators; rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, validity, and necessity; and determined proposed performance targets. Agreement and consensus with the proposed indicators were verified using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

RESULTS

The voting procedure to prioritize metrics emphasized selecting measures to improve quality and overall patient care. Panelists rated indicators on the perceived appropriateness and necessity for clinical practice. After voting and discussion, 2 quality indicators ranked as inappropriate or uncertain were excluded. Each quality indicator was categorized by measure type, performance target, and summary of evidence. The task force identified 13 quality indicators for CE and DE.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive quality indicators have not existed for CE or DE. The task force identified quality indicators that can be incorporated into clinical practice. The panel also addressed existing knowledge gaps and posed research questions to better inform future research and quality guidelines for these procedures.

Quality Indicators for Capsule Endoscopy and Deep Enteroscopy

INTRODUCTION

Capsule endoscopy (CE) and deep enteroscopy (DE) can be useful for diagnosing and treating suspected small-bowel disease. Guidelines and detailed recommendations exist for the use of CE/DE, but comprehensive quality indicators are lacking. The goal of this task force was to develop quality indicators for appropriate use of CE/DE by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

METHODS

An expert panel of 7 gastroenterologists with diverse practice experience was assembled to identify quality indicators. A literature review was conducted to develop a list of proposed quality indicators applicable to preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure periods. The panelists reviewed the literature; identified and modified proposed quality indicators; rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, validity, and necessity; and determined proposed performance targets. Agreement and consensus with the proposed indicators were verified using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

RESULTS

The voting procedure to prioritize metrics emphasized selecting measures to improve quality and overall patient care. Panelists rated indicators on the perceived appropriateness and necessity for clinical practice. After voting and discussion, 2 quality indicators ranked as inappropriate or uncertain were excluded. Each quality indicator was categorized by measure type, performance target, and summary of evidence. The task force identified 13 quality indicators for CE and DE.

DISCUSSION

Comprehensive quality indicators have not existed for CE or DE. The task force identified quality indicators that can be incorporated into clinical practice. The panel also addressed existing knowledge gaps and posed research questions to better inform future research and quality guidelines for these procedures.

[Expert consensus on clinical application management of enteroscopy in children]

Small bowel disease is one of the difficulties in the diagnosis and treatment of digestive system diseases, and limited examination techniques seriously restrict the diagnosis and treatment level of digestive tract diseases in children. With the wide clinical application of enteroscopy in pediatrics and the optimization of enteroscopy equipment and accessories, enteroscopy technique provides a new method for the diagnosis and treatment of pediatric digestive tract diseases, but there are still many issues and challenges in the standardization of clinical operation and endoscopic treatment. In order to standardize the diagnosis and treatment techniques for enteroscopy in children and improve the diagnosis and treatment level of small bowel disease, the Subspecialty Group of Gastroenterology, the Society of Pediatrics, Chinese Medical Association organized experts to fully discuss and formulate the expert consensus on the clinical application management of enteroscopy in children, with reference to the latest advances in the application of enteroscopy in children.

Water exchange-assisted versus carbon dioxide-insufflated single-balloon enteroscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) is a valuable but difficult modality for the diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disease. The water exchange method has the advantage of facilitating intubation during colonoscopy. Here, we evaluated the effects of water exchange on procedure-related variables related to SBE.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary-care referral center in China. Patients due for attempted total enteroscopy were randomly allocated to undergo water exchange-assisted (water exchange group) or carbon dioxide-insufflated enteroscopy (CO₂ group). All patients were planned to undergo both anterograde and retrograde procedures. The primary outcome was the total enteroscopy rate. Secondary outcomes included the maximal insertion depth, positive findings, procedural time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

In total, 110 patients were enrolled, with 55 in each group. Baseline characteristics between the two groups were comparable. Total enteroscopy was achieved in 58.2 % (32/55) of the water exchange group and 36.4 % (20/55) of the control group (P = 0.02). The mean (standard deviation) estimated intubation depth was 521.2 (101.4) cm in the water exchange group and 481.6 (95.2) cm in the CO₂ group (P = 0.04). The insertion time was prolonged in the water exchange group compared with the CO₂ group (178.9 [45.1] minutes vs. 154.2 [27.6] minutes; P < 0.001). Endoscopic findings and adverse events were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The water exchange method improved the total enteroscopy rate and increased the intubation depth during SBE. The use of water exchange did not increase the complications of enteroscopy.

Quality indicators in enteroscopy. Enteroscopy procedure

Within the project "Quality Indicators in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy," under the leadership of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD), our goal is to propose the procedures and the structure, process, and outcome indicators required for the application and assessment of quality in enteroscopy. To this end a search was performed for quality indicators in enteroscopy. Quality of evidence was measured by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system, and classified as high, moderate, low, and very low. A total of 10 process indicators (one preprocedure, eight procedure, one postprocedure) were identified for enteroscopy, with appropriate indication and choice of most efficient route being most significant.

Clinical Safety and Utility of Pediatric Balloon-assisted Enteroscopy: A Multicenter Prospective Study in Japan

OBJECTIVES

The benefit of balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) had been recently documented in pediatric patients, but previous reports are based on single institution experiences. We evaluated the feasibility of pediatric BAE in 8 tertiary referral hospitals throughout Japan.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multi-institutional study. Patients younger than 18 years were enrolled between April 2014 and March 2017 to undergo double-balloon or single-balloon enteroscopy. Data were collected prospectively using a standardized questionnaire.

RESULTS

We enrolled 79 pediatric patients (96 procedures, 70 boys, 26 girls; median age 12.7 years, range 1-17 years). Antegrade (oral-route) BAE was performed in 20 procedures (lowest body weight 12.9 kg, youngest age 3.7 years), and retrograde (anal-route) BAE in 76 (lowest body weight 10.8 kg, youngest age 1.6 years). Severe adverse events were associated with BAE in 2 patients: 1 with hemorrhage due to polypectomy and 1 with pancreatitis after double-balloon endoscopic retrograde cholangioscopy. No intestinal perforation was reported. Procedure duration of oral-route BAE for diagnosis was significantly longer than anal-route for diagnosis (P < 0.001). The overall diagnostic yield for rectal bleeding/positive fecal occult blood test and abdominal pain was 48%. Among 40 patients referred for diagnosis who did not undergo capsule endoscopy, diagnoses were confirmed in 17 (42.5%) patients after BAE.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective multicenter observational study documents the efficacy of BAE in pediatric patients.

Training in Endoscopy: Enteroscopy

The balloon-assisted enteroscope has been regarded as the standard device for direct visualization of deep small bowels and allows for the diagnosis and treatment of small bowel disease. At the beginning, its application was focused on the diagnosis of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, inflammatory bowel disease, and small bowel tumor. However, the indications are being expanded to various therapeutic procedures, not only confined to bleeding control. With the expansion of the indications, the need to perform enteroscopy effectively and safely is increasing. Recent studies have been focused on the diagnostic yield, therapeutic yield, and long-term outcomes of the device. However, with the increasing number of procedures, procedural guidelines and quality indicators are also needed.

Efficacy and Safety of Single-Balloon Versus Double-Balloon Enteroscopy: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

Background

Single-balloon endoscopy (SBE) has been introduced as a simplified endoscopy technique after the promotion of double-balloon endoscopy (DBE). The difference in clinical performance between DBE and SBE is still not very clear. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety between these 2 endoscopic procedures.

Material/Methods

A total of 173 patients with suspected small bowel disease were enrolled into this study from January 2007 to December 2011. All cases were divided into DBE or SBE groups according to the endoscopic procedures they underwent. We then compared the diagnostic yield, the influence of DBE and SBE on the diagnostic/therapeutic course, the examination time, and post-procedure discomfort between DBE and SBE groups.

Results

We observed no notable adverse events during or after the examinations. Additionally, SBE displays a significantly higher diagnostic rate (62.0%) than DBE (35.6%) via the anal approach (P=0.0137), while there was no difference in positive diagnostic rate between DBE and SBE via the oral route. Remarkably, it takes significantly less time to perform SBE examinations (38.86±5.64 minutes) than DBE procedures (41.80±6.50 minutes) via the oral route (P=0.048), although the average examination time for DBE is close to that for SBE via the anal route (P=0.952). However, DBE and SBE are similar in terms of their impact on the diagnostic/therapeutic course and complication rate.

Conclusions

Both SBE and DBE are very safe procedures to perform and SBE is a preferred choice for the evaluation of small bowel diseases in terms of diagnostic rate via the anal route compared with DBE.

Single-Balloon Enteroscopy

Single-balloon enteroscopy is among 3 device-assisted enteroscopy systems on the market. Compared with double-balloon enteroscopy, no significant difference in diagnostic yield was found. Additionally, no significant difference was found in oral and anal insertion depth, adverse events, or procedure times. Some studies observed lower complete enteroscopy rates, which have evidently no diagnostic impact. With a learning curve of around 30 procedures, the single-balloon endoscope is a safe endoscopic tool, which seems equally suitable for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Carbon dioxide should be used for single-balloon endoscopy procedures, especially in patients with a history of surgical abdominal interventions.

Small Bowel Endoscopy

OPINION STATEMENT

The small bowel is a challenging area for endoscopic evaluation and therapy due to its length and angulated configuration. A small lumen diameter and segmental peristalsis made it a perfect fit for examination by a novel ingestible wireless camera in a capsule. The development of capsule endoscopy changed the diagnosis and management of bleeding lesions, ulcers, and tumors deep in the small bowel, allowing earlier diagnosis with excellent patient acceptance. Device-assisted enteroscopy revolutionized small bowel therapy, particularly management of bleeding, Peutz-Jeghers polyposis, and tumor marking for minimally invasive surgery. Small bowel stricture dilation in select patients is safe and effective. Tools for a spectrum of small bowel therapies are available but remain suboptimal to tackle lesions on angulated folds deep in the small bowel. Universal terminology to describe the endoscopic appearance of vascular lesions will facilitate studies of endoscopic and medical therapy. The future holds improvements in imaging, easier advancement through the small bowel, and therapeutic capacity. This review focuses on methods of small bowel endoscopy, therapy, and outcomes.

A prospective comparison of performance during back-to-back, anterograde manual spiral enteroscopy and double-balloon enteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Spiral enteroscopy is a recently introduced technology alternative to balloon-assisted enteroscopy for examination of the small bowel.

AIM

To compare small bowel insertion depths and procedure duration by spiral enteroscopy and double-balloon enteroscopy performed in the same cohort of patients, in immediate succession, using the same method of insertion depth estimation.

METHODS

A prospective, back-to-back comparative study was performed in 15 patients. Spiral enteroscopy procedures were performed first and a tattoo was placed to mark the most distal point.

RESULTS

Double-balloon enteroscopy passed the tattoo placed at spiral enteroscopy in 14/15 cases (93%). Median insertion depths for double-balloon enteroscopy and spiral enteroscopy were 265cm and 175cm, respectively (P=0.004). Median time to achieve maximal depth of insertion was significantly shorter for spiral enteroscopy compared with double-balloon enteroscopy (24min vs. 45min, respectively; P=0.0005). However, in 14 patients no differences were found in median time to reach the same insertion depth (P=0.28).

CONCLUSION

Double-balloon enteroscopy achieved significantly greater small bowel insertion depth than spiral enteroscopy. Although overall double-balloon enteroscopy procedure duration was longer, the time taken to reach the same small bowel insertion depth by both spiral enteroscopy and double-balloon enteroscopy was similar.

SINGLE-01: a randomized, controlled trial comparing the efficacy and depth of insertion of single- and double-balloon enteroscopy by using a novel method to determine insertion depth

BACKGROUND

Single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) was introduced as an alternative to double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) for the investigation and management of small-bowel conditions. To date, there is only 1 randomized, controlled trial comparing SBE and DBE in a Western population.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the 2 instruments in a Western population to assess for differences in clinical outcomes and insertion depth (ID). A novel method to determine ID by counting folds on withdrawal was used.

DESIGN

Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

University hospitals in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia.

PATIENTS

Patients with suspected or proven small-bowel disease.

INTERVENTIONS

SBE and DBE.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield (DY). Secondary endpoints were therapeutic yield (TY), procedure times, and ID. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients were screened, and 107 patients were enrolled between July 2008 and June 2010, in whom 119 procedures were undertaken (53 SBEs and 66 DBEs). DY was 57% for SBE and 53% for DBE (P = .697). TY was 32% for SBE and 26% for DBE (P = .490). The median enteroscopy times were identical for SBE and DBE at 60 minutes. The mean ID by the fold-counting method for antegrade procedures was 201.1 folds for SBE and 258.6 folds for DBE (P = .046). After multiple comparisons adjustment, this difference did not reach statistical significance. Mean IDs by using the visual estimation method for SBE and DBE were, respectively, 72.1 cm and 75.2 cm (P = .835) for retrograde procedures and 203.8 cm and 234.1 cm (P = .176) for antegrade procedures.

LIMITATIONS

Unable to reach target sample size, mostly single-center recruitment, novel method to determine ID, which requires further validation.

CONCLUSIONS

SBE has DY, TY, and procedure times similar to those of DBE. There were no statistically significant differences in ID between SBE and DBE. By using the fold-counting method for antegrade procedures, the estimated IDs for SBE and DBE were 201.1 folds versus 258.6 folds (P = .046; P = not significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons). (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12609000917235.).

Double- vs. single-balloon vs. spiral enteroscopy

Starting with the introduction of the double-balloon enteroscope in 2001, two more techniques have been successfully developed for small bowel investigation (single-balloon enteroscopy, spiral enteroscopy). To compare the different enteroscopy systems, within this review, 68 studies were analyzed and put into context. The procedural characteristics (mean insertion depth, diagnostic yields, adverse events) were comparable for DBE, SBE or SE. The higher panenteroscopy rate in DBE might not have any clinical relevance. Therapeutic procedures, such as argon-plasma coagulation, polypectomy, dilation therapy and foreign body extraction are described with the DBE and SBE procedure. With regard to the present literature, the balloon-assisted devices as well as spiral enteroscopy technique seem to be equally suitable in clinical routine for imaging of the small bowel. The choice of the method should be based on availability, physicians' experience and clinical implications. Future randomized, controlled trials with large numbers of patients are needed to work out the subtleties of every single method.